Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.

State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 4124 of 2013
Decided on : 29-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Mr. Archana Dutt, Advocate

The appellate court may overturn a trial acquittal only if clear evidence of wrongdoing exists; otherwise, the acquittal stands due to the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Acquittal appeal - The respondent was acquitted for allegedly murdering Paras Ram due to lack of credible evidence, delayed reporting of the incident, and inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the cause of death. (Paras 1, 6-20)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - The High Court can only interfere with an acquittal if there is a misreading of evidence or a clear perversion of justice; it must respect the double presumption of innocence that arises after acquittal. (Paras 12, 37-40)

Facts of the case:
The accused was acquitted after the prosecution's key witnesses could not confirm the allegations. There was a significant delay in lodging the FIR, and initial statements cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative that the accused had attacked the victim. (Paras 6-15)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found inconsistencies in testimony and delay in reporting, leading to reasonable doubts about the accusations against the accused. (Paras 16-19)

Issues: Whether the prosecution's case was credible, considering the discrepancies in witness accounts and delays in reporting. (Paras 6-20)

Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court's acquittal was upheld as it was based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence, reinforcing that unless the conviction is unmistakably supported by evidence, an acquittal should not be disturbed. (Paras 19-20)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the incident and investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. accused's defense and trial court's reasoning for acquittal. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by both sides during appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. standards and scope for appellate review of acquittal. (Para 12)
5. evaluation of evidence and its implications on the acquittal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Police filed a challan against the accused. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It was asserted that Paras Ram (since deceased) was walking on the passage located in the backyard of his house on 10.02.2012 at about 6:00 pm. The accused was armed with a stick (Ext. P1) and he was hurling abuses. Inform ant Thakri Devi (PW1) and Shareshta Devi (PW2) went to the spot on hearing the abuses. They saw the accused Krishan Kumar beating Paras Ram with a stick. They rescued Paras Ram from the accused Krishan Kumar. Paras Ram had sustained injuries on his head and arms. He was taken to Ayurvedic Hospital, Paprola. The informant, Thakri Devi, could not mention the beatings in the Hospital due to fear. Paras Ram was referred to Tanda Hospital, where his relatives arrived. Informant — Thakri Devi — narrated the incident to her relatives. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext. PW11/A) was recorded in the police station. HC-Ashok Kumar (PW11) was sent for verification of the entry. He went to the hospital and filed an application (Ext. PW11/B) to obtain the opinion of the Medical Officer about the fitness of Paras Ram to make the statement. The Medical Officer certified that Paras Ram was not fit to make the statement. HC-Ashok Kumar recorded the statement of Thakri Devi (Ext. PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext. PW13/A) was registered. HC- Ashok Kumar conducted the investigation. He went to Ayurvedic Hospital, Paprola; however, the Medical Officer was not available and HC-Ashok Kumar could not obtain the record from the hospital. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW11/C). Thakri Devi handed over a blood-stained jacket (Ext. P3) of Paras Ram, which was sealed in a parcel (Ext. P4) with five seals of seal ‘R’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ext. PW2/A). Bidhi Chand (PW5) and Geeta Devi (PW3) put their signatures on the memo. Sample seal ‘R’ was taken on a separate piece of cloth (Ext. PW2/B). Sub-Inspector Bhanu Pratap (PW14) conducted further investigation. He received information that Paras Ram had died. He visited the hospital. The photographs (Ext. PW9/A1 to Ext. PW9/A6) were taken. Bhanu Pratap prepared the inquest reports (Ext. PW14/A and Ext. PW14/B). He filed an application (Ext. PW6/A) for obtaining the post-mortem report. Dr Vijay Arora (PW6) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body. He found that Paras Ram had died due to the compression of the brain caused due to subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage as a consequence of head injury. He issued a post-mortem report (Ext. PW6/B) and handed over the viscera to the police official accompanying the dead body. Inspector Bhanu Pratap arrested the accused. The accused made a disclosure statement (Ext. PW4/A) in the presence of HC- Pawan Kumar (PW4) and HHC-Ravi Kumar that he could get the stick recovered. The accused led the police party and got recovered a stick (